Awesome, so once I decide to start smiting my enemies, I'll at that point just forget that murder is wrong, and not have to worry about being convicted :cool:
Quote'Rockefeller' jury asks question about proof in insanity case
June 10, 2009 11:28 AM
The Suffolk Superior Court jury deliberating the fate of the man who calls himself Clark Rockefeller asked a judge today what prosecutors had to prove in the case in which the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Judge Frank Gaziano told the jury that prosecutors had to prove that Rockefeller understood the legal and moral consequences when he kidnapped his 7-year-old daughter last summer after a bitter divorce.
"The Commonwealth does have to prove the defendant could appreciate the criminality or legal import and the wrongfulness or moral import of his conduct," Gaziano told the jurors. "Further, when you asked 'Or can the Commonwealth meet its burden by proving just one of these?' The answer to that question is no."
Rockefeller, 48, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to the kidnapping charge. His is also accused of giving police a false name and two counts of assault on a social worker supervising the July 27 visit with his daughter in the Back Bay. Prosecutors allege that the defendant is really Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, a con man who came to the United States as a German exchange student in 1978 and never left.
This morning the jury began its third day of deliberations. The question about the legal definition of insanity gets to the crux of the case, which hinges on dueling diagnoses from mental health experts, who gave contradictory testimony.
Two defense experts -- Dr. Keith Ablow, a forensic psychiatrist from Newburyport, and Catherine T.J. Howe, a forensic psychologist from Salem -- testified that Rockefeller was legally insane when he abducted his daughter last summer. They told the jury that Rockefeller suffered from narcissistic personality disorder so acute that he had grandiose delusions of wealth and aristocracy that were reinforced when people such as his wife believed his outlandish stories.
The prosecution countered with Dr. James A. Chu, a clinical psychiatrist at McLean Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Chu testified that he found "very clear evidence ... of exaggeration of symptoms" by Rockefeller. The defense tried to discredit Chu because of his lack of forensic training and the fact that he made his diagnosis after visiting the defendant once for about 2 1/2 hours at the Nashua Street Jail.
This gets a lot of media attention in Mass, since this all occurred here. Guy is quite a character, for instance he faked being wealthy to his wife even though he didn't apparently have much in the way of money. Had multiple aliases or something. He's also is or was being investigated for some murders on the west coast, Washington state I think.
Clark Rockefeller... I knew that name was familiar.
He is also the main suspect in the disappearance of John and Linda Sohus, when he was renting a room in their house under the name Christopher Chichester. Soon the couple began to tell people that Chichester was a secret agent and they had been hired by him for stuff in Europe, and soon all three disappeared, seemingly to have left without a trace.
They kept sending postcards to their family for a while from Paris, then no trace of them surfaced.
John Sohus's bones were later found buried in his own backyard, while Linda Sohus has never been found. All signs point to her having met the same fate.
Here is the only picture of Chrisopher Chichester taken by the Sohuses before they disappeared.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmultimedia.heraldinteractive.com%2Fimages%2Fa37d204e06_chichester_08082008.jpg&hash=4df739b90c6fbf0f10031fead446d9fdb4511db1)
Here is the mugshot of "Clark Rockefeller":
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_vnIg6B8K-Qg%2FSVbhXh5XOgI%2FAAAAAAAAAFg%2FTC5g-mnu1r8%2Fs400%2Frockefeller.jpg&hash=958758403777c0593edb503f82694d8ff88bf5d9)
Yes, it's been established beyond reasonable doubt that Gerhartsreiter is both Clark Rockefeller and Christopher Chichester, the alias he went by when he lived with the Sohuses. Apparently the California case is 'on hold' pending the Massachusetts one.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Yes, it's been established beyond reasonable doubt that Gerhartsreiter is both Clark Rockefeller and Christopher Chichester, the alias he went by when he lived with the Sohuses. Apparently the California case is 'on hold' pending the Massachusetts one.
Did they discover any new information about the fate of Linda Sohus? Was she murdered at her place like her husband or did she follow her and was offed there?
Insanity is always a difficult subject, but it is hard to believe that what appears to be a typcial sociopath and pathological liar is legally "insane".
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 02:04:48 PM
Insanity is always a difficult subject, but it is hard to believe that what appears to be a typcial sociopath and pathological liar is legally "insane".
Yeah, this guy fits no sensible definition of 'insane'. Insane people are who you find living under bridges talking to invisible space aliens.
Quote from: Drakken on June 10, 2009, 01:25:00 PM
Clark Rockefeller... I knew that name was familiar.
He is also the main suspect in the disappearance of John and Linda Sohus, when he was renting a room in their house under the name Christopher Chichester. Soon the couple began to tell people that Chichester was a secret agent and they had been hired by him for stuff in Europe, and soon all three disappeared, seemingly to have left without a trace.
Makes me think of the used car salesman from True Lies.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 02:04:48 PM
Insanity is always a difficult subject, but it is hard to believe that what appears to be a typcial sociopath and pathological liar is legally "insane".
Yeah, this guy fits no sensible definition of 'insane'. Insane people are who you find living under bridges talking to invisible space aliens.
Oh, this guy is definitely insane, he just is not "legally insane" in the sense that he could not be held responsible for his actions because he didn't know they were wrong.
Fleeing the scene of a crime or burying bodies is kind of a giveaway that you know you did bad.
Technically, I would expect the burden of proof of any defense, such as "insanity", to rest with the defendant, not the prosecutor. However, the prosecutor does need to prove mens rea and I suppose it's often tricky to draw a clear line between mens rea and insanity defense - would you agree, BB?
Holy shit, the stupid fucking jury is still debating this after four days. :huh:
And he's found guilty.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31316520/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
I heard they only found him guilty on two charges, but not which two...
Oh, here:
QuoteBOSTON - A German man who called himself Clark Rockefeller and spun fantastic stories about himself during three decades in the United States was convicted Friday of kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter.
Rockefeller, whose real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, snatched his daughter during a supervised visit last July. He also was charged with two assaults on a social worker and with giving a false name to police. The jury found him guilty of one of the assault counts, but acquitted him on the other and on a charge of giving a false name to police.
Ok, so.... his name is not Clark Rockefeller. When he was arrested, he told the police his name was Clark Rockefeller.
...
Can someone explain to me why he would have been acquitted on that charge? :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2009, 12:00:29 PM
Oh, here:
QuoteBOSTON - A German man who called himself Clark Rockefeller and spun fantastic stories about himself during three decades in the United States was convicted Friday of kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter.
Rockefeller, whose real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, snatched his daughter during a supervised visit last July. He also was charged with two assaults on a social worker and with giving a false name to police. The jury found him guilty of one of the assault counts, but acquitted him on the other and on a charge of giving a false name to police.
Ok, so.... his name is not Clark Rockefeller. When he was arrested, he told the police his name was Clark Rockefeller.
...
Can someone explain to me why he would have been acquitted on that charge? :blink:
Maybe if you use a name long enough it becomes your real name in some common law jurisdictions, kind of like a common law wife?
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2009, 12:00:29 PM
Ok, so.... his name is not Clark Rockefeller. When he was arrested, he told the police his name was Clark Rockefeller.
...
Can someone explain to me why he would have been acquitted on that charge? :blink:
Prosecution deal ala Kim Jong Il? "You take away a charge or two, and we'll stop dragging this out and making it messier than it needs to be?"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 12, 2009, 12:21:49 PMProsecution deal ala Kim Jong Il? "You take away a charge or two, and we'll stop dragging this out and making it messier than it needs to be?"
:huh: He didn't plea bargain...... err, and after re-reading your post I have no idea what you're trying to say...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 12, 2009, 12:13:35 PM
Maybe if you use a name long enough it becomes your real name in some common law jurisdictions, kind of like a common law wife?
All I can figure is that the jury believed he really did believe his name was Clark Rockefeller (which, personally I do not believe, not for one single second), so therefore didn't knowingly commit a crime in that particular case.
Maybe the jury did not want to blow his secret spy under cover identity... oh, wait.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2009, 05:15:01 PM
Technically, I would expect the burden of proof of any defense, such as "insanity", to rest with the defendant, not the prosecutor. However, the prosecutor does need to prove mens rea and I suppose it's often tricky to draw a clear line between mens rea and insanity defense - would you agree, BB?
I'm not sure of the burden of proof. In our Criminal Code (which is merely a codification of the English Common law at its heart) states that the issue of mental disorder is to be established on a mere balance of probabilities.
But you're right that the issue of insanity is tightly wound up with the issue of
mens rea, at least as it relates to specific intent crimes.
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2009, 12:00:29 PM
Oh, here:
QuoteBOSTON - A German man who called himself Clark Rockefeller and spun fantastic stories about himself during three decades in the United States was convicted Friday of kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter.
Rockefeller, whose real name is Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, snatched his daughter during a supervised visit last July. He also was charged with two assaults on a social worker and with giving a false name to police. The jury found him guilty of one of the assault counts, but acquitted him on the other and on a charge of giving a false name to police.
Ok, so.... his name is not Clark Rockefeller. When he was arrested, he told the police his name was Clark Rockefeller.
...
Can someone explain to me why he would have been acquitted on that charge? :blink:
Juries do wierd things. It may have been a deal in order to get certain jurors on board that they only convict on certain counts.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 01:59:31 PM
Juries do wierd things. It may have been a deal in order to get certain jurors on board that they only convict on certain counts.
I guess I can see that happening, but if that's what happened IMO it's disgraceful.... I don't see how anyone could think using certain counts as 'bargaining chips' makes any sense whatsoever from an ethical standpoint.
interesting footnote: the jury foreman is apparently a professor at Harvard Law School.
Quote from: Caliga on June 12, 2009, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 01:59:31 PM
Juries do wierd things. It may have been a deal in order to get certain jurors on board that they only convict on certain counts.
I guess I can see that happening, but if that's what happened IMO it's disgraceful.... I don't see how anyone could think using certain counts as 'bargaining chips' makes any sense whatsoever from an ethical standpoint.
interesting footnote: the jury foreman is apparently a professor at Harvard Law School.
I'm surprised, yet pleased, that they let him on the jury.